Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article focuses on short male consumers and fashion design. There are two reasons why we chose short men for this study. First, male consumers who are shorter than 5’8” have been ignored by most of the mainstream fashion brands (Brock, 2013). Second, “scholarly research has almost exclusively focused on women, leaving a critical gap in the research on men’s fit issues and preferences (Chattaraman et al. (2013, p. 291).” Qualitative and quantitative research methods were employed to understand how short men perceive, evaluate and select clothing from different perspectives. This research project consists of three phases, however, we only completed the first phase of our study at this stage. Therefore, this article only focuses on phase one, and the results of phase two and three will be presented in the future. In phase one, online posted comments were collected from two fashion blogs in order to understand short men’s shopping and consuming experiences. We believe that the results of this study will provide meaningful insights and useful information to fashion practitioners in general and menswear designers in particular.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it